Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 17.
Reverend J. William Jones, Ed.

---

Massachusetts the mother of secession.

Sentiment or considerations of abstract right have usually little control over the actions of political communities, and even the plainest provisions of written law may be construed to meet the views of selfish interest. The opposition to the acquisition of Louisiana was solely a matter of interest—a question of political preponderance and a controlling influence in the general government by the States of the North. They had been willing a few years before to accept from the princely generosity of Virginia the great Northwest territory, which [92] appeared at that early day to open a field for almost unlimited expansion to the northern section of the Union. But when it was proposed to acquire territory at the other end of the republic, which would secure the balance of power between the sections, or might incline the scale to the southern side, a clamor at once arose, and secession, plain and unadulterated, was preached by New England as a remedy for what she styled the abuse of the powers of the general government.

Massachusetts, the mother of secession, which she had taught to her sister colonies in 1776, cannot repudiate the utterances of her most eminent statesmen in 1804 and 1811. Timothy Pickering, who had been in succession at the head of three different cabinet departments during the administration of Washington, and at that time United States senator from Massachusetts, in a letter referring to what he considered the abuse of the Federal power in the Louisiana purchase, says: ‘The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy—a separation. * * * It must begin in Massachusetts. The proposition would be welcomed in Connecticut, and could we doubt of New Hampshire? But New York must be associated, and how is her concurrence to be obtained? She must be made the centre of the confederacy. Vermont and New Jersey would follow of course, and Rhode Island of necessity.’

With the single substitution of the names of the States, how would this sound in 1861 when the rights of the slave-holding States were invaded? The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy—a separation. * * * It must begin in South Carolina. The proposition would be welcomed in Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, and could we doubt of Louisiana and Texas? But Virginia must be associated. * * * Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina would follow of course, and Florida of necessity.

Again, in 1811, when Louisiana knocked at the door of the Union for admission as a State, Josiah Quincy, of Massachusetts, said upon the floor of Congress, ‘If this bill passes, it is my deliberate opinion that it is a virtual dissolution of the Union; that it will free the States from their moral obligation, and as it is the right of all, so it will be the duty of some definitely to prepare for a separation, amicably if they can, violently if they must.’ Trace our late civil war to its source and you will find it here. From this time forth the conflict was fiercely waged on the hustings and at the ballot box, in the courts and in the halls of Congress, in the sacred desk and in the public press. Bursting into flame in the border war of Kansas, [93] and finally sweeping the country like a besom in 1861 to 1865; it ended only when Lee laid down his arms at Appomattox.

I have said that Massachusetts was the mother of secession—nor need she or any other State be ashamed to own its maternity. Its exercise has produced two of the greatest revolutions of modern times. The one gave birth to a world-great republic, the other settled at least some of its complex internal relations, let us hope forever, and both gave to the world men worthy to be ranked with the Homeric heroes of old.